Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 41
  1. #1
    Thailand Expat Jesus Jones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Last Online
    22-09-2017 @ 11:00 AM
    Posts
    6,952

    Climate scientists admit fresh error over data on rising sea levels

    If we can't trust this highly advanced international body to get the facts right about the world's end, then who the feck can we trust.
    .................................



    Climate experts have been forced to admit another embarrassing error in their most recent report on the threat of climate change.
    In a background note – released by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) last night – the UN group said its 2007 report wrongly stated that 55% of the Netherlands lies below sea level. In fact, only 26% of the country does. The figure used by the IPCC included all areas in the country that are prone to flooding, including land along rivers above sea level. This accounts for 29% of the Dutch countryside.
    "The sea-level statistic was used for background information only, and the updated information remains consistent with the overall conclusions," the IPCC note states. Nevertheless, the admission is likely to intensify claims by sceptics that the IPCC work is riddled with sloppiness.
    The disclosure will intensify divisions between scientists and sceptics over the interpretation of statistics and the use of sources for writing climate change reports, disagreements that have led to apologies being made by both sides of the debate. Last week a key climate-change sceptic apologised for alleging that one of the world's leading meteorologists had deliberately exaggerated the dangers of global warming.


    Climate scientists admit fresh error over data on rising sea levels | Environment | The Observer
    You bullied, you laughed, you lied, you lost!

  2. #2
    Thailand Expat AntRobertson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    33,544
    "The sea-level statistic was used for background information only, and the updated information remains consistent with the overall conclusions,"
    ... So they corrected themselves on an error that's largely irrelevant to the final conclusions, big deal. If I were to incorrectly state that 100% of all clouds are rain-clouds, it doesn't change the fact that rain does come from clouds.

    In fact perhaps there's a lesson in that for certain posters on here that keep repeating the same discredited 'information'.

  3. #3
    Dislocated Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    The thin ice of modern life.
    Posts
    3,745
    Quote Originally Posted by Jesus Jones View Post
    "The sea-level statistic was used for background information only, and the updated information remains consistent with the overall conclusions," the IPCC note states.
    Fair enough, they've corrected the mistake and it didn't effect the overall conclusions anyway.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jesus Jones View Post
    Nevertheless, the admission is likely to intensify claims by sceptics that the IPCC work is riddled with sloppiness.
    No! No way.. who could think such a thing? That the finest rational thinkers this world has, would blow this out of proportion..?
    I find that very, very difficult to believe.

  4. #4
    Out there...
    StrontiumDog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    BKK
    Posts
    40,030
    Why is this even news?

  5. #5
    Thailand Expat Jesus Jones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Last Online
    22-09-2017 @ 11:00 AM
    Posts
    6,952
    Corrected themselves after pressure from challenging scientist that have done so for the last few year.

    Good god you guys are soft.

  6. #6
    Thailand Expat AntRobertson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    33,544
    All the ad hominen in the world won't change the fact this is a non-issue.

  7. #7
    R.I.P.
    DrB0b's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    ALL GLORY TO THE HYPNOTOAD
    Posts
    17,158
    Quote Originally Posted by Jesus Jones View Post
    Corrected themselves after pressure from challenging scientist that have done so for the last few year.

    Good god you guys are soft.
    Where did it say that? I didn't see that in that article?

    I did see this though;

    "The sea-level statistic was used for background information only, and the updated information remains consistent with the overall conclusions,"
    and this

    The disclosure will intensify divisions between scientists and sceptics over the interpretation of statistics and the use of sources for writing climate change reports, disagreements that have led to apologies being made by both sides of the debate. Last week a key climate-change sceptic apologised for alleging that one of the world's leading meteorologists had deliberately exaggerated the dangers of global warming.
    and this

    In an email debate in the Observer, Benny Peiser, head of the UK Global Warming Policy Foundation, quoted Sir John Houghton, the UK scientist who played a key role in establishing the IPCC, as saying that "unless we announce disasters, no one will listen".


    But in a letter to the Observer, Houghton said: "The quote from me is without foundation. I have never said it or written it. Although it has spread on the internet like wild fire, I do not know its origin. In fact, I have frequently argued the opposite, namely that those who make such statements are not only wrong but counterproductive."


    Houghton said he was incensed because he believed the quote attributed to him, and to the IPCC, an attitude of hype and exaggeration and demanded an apology from Peiser.


    For his part, Peiser told the Observer that he welcomed the clarification. "For many years, the Houghton 'quote' has been published in numerous books and articles. I took Sir John's failure to challenge it hitherto as a tacit admission that the 'quote' was accurate and reflected his view on climate policy. Now that he has publicly disowned the statement, I will certainly refrain from using it."


    Houghton's "quote" has become one of the most emblematic remarks supposed to have been made by a mainstream scientist about global warming, and appears on almost two million web pages concerned with climate change. The fact that it now turns out to be fabricated has delighted scientists.


    "We do not over-egg the pudding when it comes to the evidence about global warming – and I hope people will now appreciate this point," said Alan Thorpe, head of the Natural Environment Research Council.

    It seems they corrected an error although the error doesn't affect the overall conclusion. If you don't understand that errors and correction of errors are part of the scientific process then you have absolutely no understanding of the scientific method.
    The Above Post May Contain Strong Language, Flashing Lights, or Violent Scenes.

  8. #8
    Thailand Expat
    Mr R Sole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Last Online
    Today @ 05:53 PM
    Location
    The back of beyond..on the bloody PC by the looks of it!!
    Posts
    2,043
    Quote Originally Posted by AntRobertson
    ... So they corrected themselves on an error that's largely irrelevant to the final conclusions, big deal. If I were to incorrectly state that 100% of all clouds are rain-clouds, it doesn't change the fact that rain does come from clouds.

    In fact perhaps there's a lesson in that for certain posters on here that keep repeating the same discredited 'information'.
    A lesson many will choose to ignore.

    Woooow a 29% error... whoop dee do...still much of the country would be fooked..

  9. #9
    Thailand Expat

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Last Online
    06-02-2017 @ 01:18 PM
    Location
    Bangkok Thailand
    Posts
    2,231
    EVANS: Global warming snow job

    The scientific community has abandoned science
    By Leonard Evans
    Not even 30 inches of snow falling on Washington has discredited claims of "global warming," the belief that human activity is appreciably warming our planet. Of course, a single snowstorm does not disprove global warming. Weather is not the same as climate. But even after a decade of unexpectedly cool temperatures, global-warming alarmists still show no skepticism. Skepticism is a core value of science.

    In "1984," George Orwell wrote about Big Brother (government) being so powerful that it can persuade people to believe things contrary to their senses. It even can convince them that two plus two is not equal to four.

    Eventually the truth will out. When global warming finally is recognized as the world's greatest political hoax, those discredited will not be the perpetrators.

    The perpetrators are politicians and traditional media. After the credibility bubble bursts, the same politicians and media will continue to influence what the public is told. They will effectively claim that they never misled anyone. The fall guy will be science.

    Lost in the confusion will be the distinction between science and the scientific community.

    The scientific community has largely abandoned science. It has degenerated into little more than just another lobbying group seeking advancement for its members.

    The scientific community gets it right when the stakes are unimportant. It effectively opposed such anti-scientific nonsense as creationism. If the religious zealots had won, children would be told that the Old Testament described things that really happened. Not good - but it would do little harm and certainly would not harm the world's economies.
    How starkly the vigorous opposition to creationism contrasts with the community's near silence in response to the anti-scientific nonsense coming from the likes of Al Gore. Worse than silence, in all too many cases, the community has been an enthusiastic participant in an orgy of unreason. It has been an orgy lubricated by almost limitless opportunities to grab influence, physical resources and cool cash.

    Galileo Galilei, the father of experimental science, was convicted of a crime in 1633 for stating "that the Earth is not at the center of the universe, and it moves." This contradicted the then-prevailing belief, supported by most highly credentialed astronomers of the day. His sentence was house arrest until his death in 1642.

    Galileo was treated more leniently than earlier pioneer Giordano Bruno, who was burned at the stake in 1600 for similar crimes.

    Then, it was fear of the unknown that threatened intellectual freedom. Today, it is governments and international bodies. While they do not execute or imprison heretics, they still wield enormous power.

    "Climate of Fear. Global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence" was the headline on a column in the Wall Street Journal by Richard Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Mr. Lindzen writes, "Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis."

    It is easy to create the illusion of consensus when those who disagree are silenced.

    It is not known what the majority of scientists think about global warming, not that it matters all that much. Science is not about counting votes. However, I can offer an anecdotal observation.

    I am a scientist, while my wife is a professor of art history. Her colleagues generally think all scientists support Mr. Gore - after all, they have been so informed by such authoritative sources as the New York Times. My fellow doctorate-holding science colleagues generally share my conclusion: The claim that human activity has appreciably warmed our planet is the greatest political hoax ever.

    Many specific actions supported by global-warming alarmists are admirable. We ought to pollute less and transfer less wealth to Middle Eastern oil-producing tyrannies. These issues should be addressed on their merits. They have little to do with global temperature.

    To do sensible things for irrational reasons just validates irrationality. And who can tell what future horrors will be justified by irrationality?

    When the global-warming hoax eventually collapses, the victim will be science. When science suffers, we all suffer.

    Leonard Evans has a doctorate in physics from Oxford University and is a member of the National Academy of Engineering. He has authored more than 100 peer-reviewed papers on many scientific subjects.

  10. #10
    R.I.P.
    DrB0b's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    ALL GLORY TO THE HYPNOTOAD
    Posts
    17,158
    Quote Originally Posted by Thaihome
    Leonard Evans has a doctorate in physics from Oxford University and is a member of the National Academy of Engineering. He has authored more than 100 peer-reviewed papers on many scientific subjects...
    ...and spent 33 years working for General Motors


    http://www.americanscientist.org/aut.../leonard-evans
    Last edited by DrB0b; 19-02-2010 at 06:44 PM.

  11. #11
    Dislocated Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    The thin ice of modern life.
    Posts
    3,745
    Quote Originally Posted by Thaihome View Post
    The scientific community has largely abandoned science. It has degenerated into little more than just another lobbying group seeking advancement for its members.
    I'm convinced.

  12. #12
    Thailand Expat
    Takeovers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Last Online
    Today @ 02:29 PM
    Location
    Berlin Germany
    Posts
    5,722
    Quote Originally Posted by DrB0b View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Thaihome
    Leonard Evans has a doctorate in physics from Oxford University and is a member of the National Academy of Engineering. He has authored more than 100 peer-reviewed papers on many scientific subjects...
    ...and spent 33 years working for General Motors

    Good info.

    Yes it is absolutely clear now, I'm convinced. A doctorate in physics and 33 years working for General Motors makes him more qualified than Climatologists.

    I have said before, that Bush was a denialist, yet during his terms no reputable science was put forward that disproved global warming. This makes me believe that there is not a single Climatologist out there who does not believe in manmade global warming.

  13. #13
    Thailand Expat

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Last Online
    06-02-2017 @ 01:18 PM
    Location
    Bangkok Thailand
    Posts
    2,231
    Quote Originally Posted by Takeovers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DrB0b View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Thaihome
    Leonard Evans has a doctorate in physics from Oxford University and is a member of the National Academy of Engineering. He has authored more than 100 peer-reviewed papers on many scientific subjects...
    ...and spent 33 years working for General Motors

    Good info.

    Yes it is absolutely clear now, I'm convinced. A doctorate in physics and 33 years working for General Motors makes him more qualified than Climatologists.

    I have said before, that Bush was a denialist, yet during his terms no reputable science was put forward that disproved global warming. This makes me believe that there is not a single Climatologist out there who does not believe in manmade global warming.
    I don't think Dr. Evans claimed to be a climatologists, his opinion piece was about the science and politics, which it would seem is he well qualified to comment on.

    Also, no self respecting scientist would claim to "believe" in a theory, after all, it is science, not religion, though it is often hard to tell the difference when talking to "believers"

    There are lot's of climatologists that have not signed up to the new religon.

    List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    TH

  14. #14
    Out there...
    StrontiumDog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    BKK
    Posts
    40,030
    LOL

    They've even included deceased scientists on that rather short list.

    However, the IPCC...

    "reports reference as many as 20,000 documents and the writing and review process involved more than 2,500 expert scientific reviewers."

    Contrarians Attack IPCC Over Glacier Findings, But Glaciers are Still Melting | Union of Concerned Scientists
    "Slavery is the daughter of darkness; an ignorant people is the blind instrument of its own destruction; ambition and intrigue take advantage of the credulity and inexperience of men who have no political, economic or civil knowledge. They mistake pure illusion for reality, license for freedom, treason for patriotism, vengeance for justice."-Simón Bolívar

  15. #15
    Thailand Expat

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Last Online
    06-02-2017 @ 01:18 PM
    Location
    Bangkok Thailand
    Posts
    2,231
    From your own link:
    It is not clear how this unsupported assertion made it into the report, although it was openly challenged by some researchers during the review and editing process. Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC chairman, said this week that the IPCC will investigate the matter.

    It’s simple, because the people leading this do not let mere facts get in the way and do not let anyone that does say anything.

    This is exactly what Dr. Evans was trying to say. It has reached the point where the science has little to do with it anymore, it is about being a believer.

    I don't claim to know if there is actually AGW, but is sure would help me if these people could actually produce a model of the Earths' climate that would even predict where we are today based on known historical data. Otherwise they are just putting forth a unproved hypothesis based on flawed models. It is just to complex for them to predicate


    Nobody doubts that there is climate change (duh). Nobody is even doubting man may have some impact on regional climate, but this whole AGW is doing nothing but taking the focus away from local pollution problems that need to be solved and no amount of carbon credits/trading energy rationing is going to fix them.

    Do you want a future where other people decide how much energy you get to use?

    TH

  16. #16
    Out there...
    StrontiumDog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    BKK
    Posts
    40,030
    I wasn't aware that was part of the plan...certainly I've never heard of a future where I'm told how much energy I get to use....

    I see this as the beauty of science. Erroneous facts were entered, it has been discovered, it will be changed and improvements made. However, the global climate change model is intact. It was a minor flaw in an otherwise comprehensive and important document. Where is this believing you've made mention of? Scientific research is dynamic, hypotheses are improved and altered as new research, information or facts come to light. That's why it is credible and relevant.

    Where's the belief?

    Compare this with religion, where belief is absolute. It is never nor can it be ever challenged. You have to accept it, as written, or there are consequences.


    As regards models of the earths climate, there are plenty of those.
    Last edited by StrontiumDog; 23-02-2010 at 01:37 PM.

  17. #17
    Thailand Expat

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Last Online
    06-02-2017 @ 01:18 PM
    Location
    Bangkok Thailand
    Posts
    2,231
    I was responding to another posters remark "that there is not a single Climatologist out there who does not believe in manmade global warming." I pointed out to him that this suppose to be science not religon.
    You of course called the list "rather short". Short or not, not all experts agree and the science is not done as some are so fond of saying.
    The models used have serious shortcomings that even the IPCC itself aknowledges. They are not even sure how uncertain the uncertainity is in the models. It is just too complex.

    Here is a site that I think does a pretty good job of telling both sides. It is worth a read of at least the main page, unless of course your mind is made up and you actually don't want to hear anything else.

    Facts about Climate Change Science, truth from consensus and climate change skeptics
    TH

  18. #18
    R.I.P.
    DrB0b's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    ALL GLORY TO THE HYPNOTOAD
    Posts
    17,158
    Quote Originally Posted by Thaihome View Post
    I was responding to another posters remark "that there is not a single Climatologist out there who does not believe in manmade global warming." I pointed out to him that this suppose to be science not religon.
    You of course called the list "rather short". Short or not, not all experts agree and the science is not done as some are so fond of saying.
    The models used have serious shortcomings that even the IPCC itself aknowledges. They are not even sure how uncertain the uncertainity is in the models. It is just too complex.

    Here is a site that I think does a pretty good job of telling both sides. It is worth a read of at least the main page, unless of course your mind is made up and you actually don't want to hear anything else.

    Facts about Climate Change Science, truth from consensus and climate change skeptics
    TH
    I think you're getting confused between belief and faith. Belief without proof is faith. Belief with proof is, well, belief. Belief is not confined to religion and is often based on the truth. It's perfectly acceptable to use it in the above context and doesn't even remotely imply that the belief is based on anything other than current scientific evidence.

  19. #19
    Thailand Expat
    Takeovers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Last Online
    Today @ 02:29 PM
    Location
    Berlin Germany
    Posts
    5,722
    Quote Originally Posted by DrB0b
    I think you're getting confused between belief and faith. Belief without proof is faith. Belief with proof is, well, belief. Belief is not confined to religion and is often based on the truth. It's perfectly acceptable to use it in the above context and doesn't even remotely imply that the belief is based on anything other than current scientific evidence.
    Thank you!

  20. #20
    Thailand Expat

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Last Online
    06-02-2017 @ 01:18 PM
    Location
    Bangkok Thailand
    Posts
    2,231
    Quote Originally Posted by DrB0b View Post
    It's perfectly acceptable to use it in the above context and doesn't even remotely imply that the belief is based on anything other than current scientific evidence.
    So, you aren't even going to read the link I gave. Is that faith or belief?

    TH

  21. #21
    R.I.P.
    DrB0b's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    ALL GLORY TO THE HYPNOTOAD
    Posts
    17,158
    Quote Originally Posted by Thaihome View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DrB0b View Post
    It's perfectly acceptable to use it in the above context and doesn't even remotely imply that the belief is based on anything other than current scientific evidence.
    So, you aren't even going to read the link I gave. Is that faith or belief?

    TH

    That link has been posted many times on this forum, I've already written a number of posts about what's said on that site. I'm not going to repeat them. Did you think this was the first GW thread we've had on here? You ought to learn to use the forum search function before making faith-based statements like that.

  22. #22
    Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Last Online
    11-07-2010 @ 09:24 AM
    Location
    Ho Chi Minh City
    Posts
    264
    It amazes me the amount of folks who still hang their hat on the IPCC report.

    Would you buy a used car off these people?

    This report that makes the ase for spending trillions of dollars to combat AGW has been shown time and again to contain every kind of error from simple maths to blatant lies. If the case for AGW is as solid as they say they should rewrite the report and resubmit it.

    If anybody submitted a thesis containing such glaring schoolboy howlers would any of you award them their doctorate?

  23. #23
    Out there...
    StrontiumDog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    BKK
    Posts
    40,030
    Quote Originally Posted by Thaihome View Post
    I was responding to another posters remark "that there is not a single Climatologist out there who does not believe in manmade global warming." I pointed out to him that this suppose to be science not religon.
    You of course called the list "rather short". Short or not, not all experts agree and the science is not done as some are so fond of saying.
    The models used have serious shortcomings that even the IPCC itself aknowledges. They are not even sure how uncertain the uncertainity is in the models. It is just too complex.

    Here is a site that I think does a pretty good job of telling both sides. It is worth a read of at least the main page, unless of course your mind is made up and you actually don't want to hear anything else.

    Facts about Climate Change Science, truth from consensus and climate change skeptics
    TH
    Unbiased? Are you sure about that?

  24. #24
    Thailand Expat Boon Mee's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 11:50 AM
    Location
    Samui
    Posts
    44,718
    Quote Originally Posted by AntRobertson View Post
    All the ad hominen in the world won't change the fact this is a non-issue.
    Heh,,,perhaps a non-issue to those Kool Aid drinkers such as yourself but it's just one more nail in the Climategate coffin there slick...

  25. #25
    Out there...
    StrontiumDog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    BKK
    Posts
    40,030
    Only for those whose agenda it feeds....

    Any rational person would see it for what it is.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •